First, let me apologize if I have lit a fire.
The problem that I see is that before this proposed logged-in exception, our text was silent on the question of whether simply being logged-in could be taken as consent; the debate could, and probably would, have happened on the outside, after we published.
However, if our text shows that we explicitly considered logged in as 'giving consent', then people will be able to point at that clause and claim compliance. Those wishing to disagree would have to come back to the W3C. And we would need to show that we considered the question.
So, if we are to have text that explicitly addresses being logged in, I believe we also need to have the debate. We cannot move the debate from outside to inside, and then not have it.
On the exception itself, I have taken the time to ask a random, personal, sample of people about social widgets on pages. Pretty universally, once they realize that they could be tracking them, they are concerned. Unlike invisible trackers, or advertisers -- that have to work out who I am -- these widgets know exactly who I am, my interests, friends, and so on. People are already exhibiting care and restraint in what they choose to tell these networks; they are very much concerned about what the networks learn about them that they didn't choose to tell them.
We do have to talk about this; I'm sorry if this is uncomfortable, but I didn't actually propose this exception.
David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.